United States v. Prastana Taohim, 529 F. App'x 969

Taohim appeals his convictions for obstruction of proceedings before an agency (18 U.S.C. § 1505) and for altering records to impede a federal proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 1519).
The MARPOL framework and implementing U.S. law require a garbage record book reflecting discharges and signatures; the captain signs pages and records must be kept onboard.
Taohim ordered Chief Officer Atiga to throw plastic pipes overboard and to omit the discharge from the garbage record book; Atiga warned it was illegal and did not record the discharge.
During a Port State Control inspection in Mobile, Alabama, witnesses testified that Taohim directed the illegal discharge, yet the garbage record book showed no plastics discharge.
A seven-count indictment followed, with Taohim convicted on Counts One and Four; post-trial motions for acquittal and for a new trial were denied.
Taohim challenged new-trial grounds based on allegedly improper prosecutor remarks and later-disclosed whistleblower awards to trial witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for §1505	Taohim argues no corrupt intent to influence a pending proceeding.	The government showed he intended to interfere with the Coast Guard investigation by presenting a false garbage record book.	Evidence supported corrupt-intent conviction under §1505.
Sufficiency of evidence for §1519	Taohim contends there was no intent to impede an investigation when the discharge was falsified.	Falsification done in contemplation of an investigation suffices under §1519.	Evidence supported §1519 conviction; intent to impede in contemplation of an investigation was possible.
New-trial based on newly discovered evidence and prosecutorial misconduct	New whistleblower payments after trial show witness motive and possible Sixth Amendment issues.	Payments were impeachment, not material; no misconduct established; credibility intact.	District court did not abuse its discretion; no new-trial warranted.

United States v. Pena, 684 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2012) (sufficiency standard for judgment of acquittal on appeal)
United States v. White, 663 F.3d 1207 (11th Cir. 2011) (favorable-view of record for sufficiency review; credibility resolves in verdict favor)
United States v. Hill, 643 F.3d 807 (11th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency with credibility determinations)
Kendrick v. United States, 682 F.3d 974 (11th Cir. 2012) (statements from defendant can be substantive evidence if believed by jury)
United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012) (‘in contemplation’ prong may be satisfied by potential future investigation)
United States v. DiBernardo, 880 F.2d 1216 (11th Cir. 1989) (new-trial relief denied where evidence is impeachment not material)
Owens v. Wainwright, 698 F.2d 1111 (11th Cir. 1983) (five-part test for newly discovered evidence)
United States v. Jernigan, 341 F.3d 1273 (11th Cir. 2003) (abuse-of-discretion standard for new-trial rulings)
United States v. Merrill, 513 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2008) (plain-error review framework for prosecutorial misconduct)
United States v. Rodriguez, 627 F.3d 1372 (11th Cir. 2010) (plain-error standard in prosecutor-misconduct claims)
United States v. Johns, 734 F.2d 657 (11th Cir. 1984) (closing argument permissible to suggest conclusions from evidence)